If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Definition of Hypocritical

Looks like the Republicans love federal spending when they're demanding it for their own state to help double-pay insured residents. I especially like the fact that we hear from Flake and McCain on the issue when they BOTH voted against disaster funding in H.R. 152 (link to vote. I love how the Republican party continues to help define the word hypocritical.

Re: Definition of Hypocritical

Not to mention the 8 years of Bush when republicans spent money like drunken sailors. That and their deregulating banks and manipulating interest rates drove the nation into near depression. While they accuse Dems of being "tax and spend", they foster a "borrow and spend" mentality. This is all part and parcel to the division within the republican party. Traditional republicans want to resume the Bush years, while teabaggers want to gut the government...a situation that makes the party totally dysfunctional.

Re: Definition of Hypocritical

When one considers that funding of the NSA - actual expenditure, an national secret - is estimated to be at least 10 billion both sides of the aisle should be considered hypocrites for permitting a lack of credible Congressional oversight to compromise the personal liberties of all United States citizens...defining very well that hypocritical behaviour is not monopolised by any one political party.

Who would believe that only one party should carry the can for spending on the NSAs snooping activities....? None...except the deluded.

This CNN article speaks forthrightly on the matter of Federal spending on the National Security Agency:

Re: Definition of Hypocritical

Originally Posted by kallipolis

When one considers that funding of the NSA - actual expenditure, an national secret - is estimated to be at least 10 billion both sides of the aisle should be considered hypocrites for permitting a lack of credible Congressional oversight to compromise the personal liberties of all United States citizens...defining very well that hypocritical behaviour is not monopolised by any one political party.

Who would believe that only one party should carry the can for spending on the NSAs snooping activities....? None...except the deluded.

This CNN article speaks forthrightly on the matter of Federal spending on the National Security Agency:

I'm not seeing how this is hypocritical, other than it is a convenience for you to bring up the NSA in a thread not about the NSA. Congress has the authority, as granted in the Constitution, to pass laws and establish budgets. They have Constitutionally exercised that right and they are able to do whatever they want when it comes to setting the requirements in the law for oversight and expenditures of money. That is how the US is run, as established by the Constitution. If they are unhappy with the law or feel they don't have enough oversight, then it is well within their power to change it. The same goes with funding. If they feel that the NSA shouldn't be funded at the levels it is, they can change that as well. There is nothing hypocritical about it, except maybe the fact that a number of these people voted for this funding level and these laws and now engage in political showmanship about how they are surprised that it is actually used. But again, if they are truly bothered and they are in the majority, then they can get the law changed easily.

Re: Definition of Hypocritical

Besides the taliban type morality, the complete willingness to turn the economy over to the alcoholics and drug addicts on Wall St, the chicken hawks, their obsession with not wanting people to have health care---the hypocrisy should be the deal breaker for anyone ever being a republican--even if you like certain conservative ideas.